Delhi District Court
1 State vs . Bindeshwar on 25 January, 2014
1 State Vs. Bindeshwar
IN THE COURT OF MS AANCHAL MM-6, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Bindeshwar
FIR No. 399/03
P.S. I.P. Estate
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 939/2/12
2. Date of institution : 25.01.2005
3. Name of the complainant : Ct. Sanjay Kumar
4. Date of commission of offence : 25.11.2003
5. Name of accused : Bindeshwar Kumar S/o
Sunder Sahani R/o C-7,
Jhilmil Colony, Delhi
6. Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded
not guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment : 25.01.2014
9. Final order : Acquitted
10.Date of such Judgment : 25.01.2014
Page 1 of 4
Judgment in case FIR No.399/03 PS IP Estate dt.25.1.2014
2 State Vs. Bindeshwar
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.11.2003 at about 9.30am at VD Marg Crossing Kotla Road within the jurisdiction of PS IP Estate, accused was found driving a Tata Sumo Car No. DL-7C-7932 in rash and negligent manner and while driving in such manner, accused hit against pedestrian namely Ganesh and caused grievous injuries on his person.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s 279/338 IPC . After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., accused was served with the notice by Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined following 4 witnesses.
a) PW1 T.U. Sidiqui, deposed that he conducted inspection of vehicle No. DL 7C 7932 and his report is Ex. PW-1/A.
b) PW-2 Ajmer Singh, was the registered owner and he deposed that accused was the permanent driver of offending vehicle but he cannot say who was driving the car at the time of accident.
c) PW-3 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, was the complainant and he deposed that on 25.11.2003 at about 9.30 am, accused was driving the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. DL 7C 7932 in the rash and negligent manner and while driving so hit against Ganesh due to which he sustained injury. He also handed over accused to the IO who recorded his statement Ex. PW-3/A and prepared site plan at his instance Ex. PW-4/B and arrested and searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW-3/C and Ex. PW-3/D.
d) PW-4 ASI Suresh, was the IO of the case and he described the procedural steps taken by him during the investigation.Page 2 of 4
Judgment in case FIR No.399/03 PS IP Estate dt.25.1.2014 3 State Vs. Bindeshwar
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. vide which accused denied the allegations against him and claimed to be innocent. However accused did not opt to lead evidence defence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the entire judicial file.
6. In order to prove the allegations for the offence punishable U/s 279/338 IPC under notice, the prosecution is to prove the essential fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing No. DL 7C 7932. The fact of rashness or negligence is not the isolated act and this fact is proved by the deposition of the witnesses and attendant circumstances at the spot collectively. The injured Ganesh was not produced before the court being not traceable. The only proposed witness of fact Ct. Sanjay Kumar, PW3 deposed that Tata Sumo bearing No. DL 7C 7932 driven by accused in negligent manner hit the boy, who was crossing the road. This witness had not explained the manner of driving at all. It is not explained why the driving is called by him as negligent. It does not suggest the element of rashness or negligence in intself. Therefore, this deposition can not be relied solely and as a rule of prudence , it has to be corroborated by other cogent evidence. This Court has examined the material available on record. It is not the case of the prosecution that any photograph reflecting the spot of incident, skid marks as present on the spot, damages in the vehicle or surroundings, were taken. Site plan Ex. PW-4/B is not suggesting the location of offending vehicle, injured, Ct. Sanjay, specifically. From this site plan, it cannot be said from where HC Anup had the opportunity to look the incident. Site plan is also silent about the location of light any foot over bridge, underpass, subway, zebra crossing or the distance between offending vehicle from footpath etc. There is no evidence in which lane the vehicle was being driven. In such circumstances, none of the attendent circumstances are shown.Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the manner of driving of bus could not be proved at all to call the same as rash or negligent. Accordingly, there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the Page 3 of 4 Judgment in case FIR No.399/03 PS IP Estate dt.25.1.2014 4 State Vs. Bindeshwar factum of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
7. In view of the above discussion, Bindeshwar Kumar, s/o. Sh. Sunder Sahani is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s279/338 IPC. However, personal bond and surety bond shall be discharged after the expiry of six months as per section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to RR.
Announced in
Open Court on 25.1.2014 (AANCHAL)
MM/06/C/DELHI
Page 4 of 4
Judgment in case FIR No.399/03 PS IP Estate dt.25.1.2014